A Census Protest and a People's Review

This
week, the Independent Constitutional Review Panel Chairman
David Round calls for submissions on the People's Review of
New Zealand's constitutional arrangements, and we look at
the ethnicity question in the census. Our NZCPR Guest
Commentator Professor Elizabeth Rata discusses the
importance of having your say on the future of our
constitution, and our weekly poll asks whether you would
like the option of calling yourself a "New Zealander" in the
Census.

*You can make an on-line
submission by visiting the www.ConstitutionalReview.org website
and clicking the "Make an on-line submission"
link.

We do hope you will take the time to share your
views on our constitution with us - don't forget the
government advisory panel is spending $2 million on
encouraging Maori to engage with the constitutional review,
so we are hoping that other New Zealanders, who are not
being targeted by the government, will realise how important
it is to make sure their voices and their views are also
heard on this matter which is of such crucial importance to
our democracy and our future.

Over the last few years, there has been a growing
consensus amongst the leaders of western nations –
including the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Holland,
Belgium, and Australia - that policies and practices
that divide citizens along ethnic and cultural lines
are dangerous.

In Holland, the Dutch government
decided to abandon the long-standing model of
multiculturalism that had created a parallel society within
the Netherlands: “It is necessary because otherwise
the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one
feels at home anymore in the Netherlands.”[1] In Britain,
Prime Minister David Cameron went as far as calling for an
end to government funding for organisations that promote
separatism: “Let's properly judge these organisations. Do
they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they
believe in democracy? Do they encourage integration or
separatism? These are the sorts of questions we need to ask.
Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage
with such organisations”.[2]

The point is that while
western leaders are busy condemning separatism, our
government is assisting a march towards it. Over the next
two weeks, two separate official events will show how far we
have gone down the separatist path – they are the Census
and the official launch of the Maori Party’s
constitutional review.

While the Census is normally
regarded as being a benign enough event, when you drill down
into some of the questions the divisions can be seen.
Question 11 on ethnicity for example, sounds innocuous
enough: “Which ethnic group do you belong to?” Eight
options are given - New Zealand European, Maori, Samoan,
Cook Island Maori, Tongan, Niuean, Chinese, and Indian. A
ninth option “other” is also provided with space to
write alternative ethnicities.

The problem is that ever
since the ethnicity questions was changed in the 1980s from
an objective measure based on the percentage of ancestry a
person might have, to the modern-day subjective
self-definition of heritage, the results have been
interpreted in a way that dramatically overstates the number
of people of Maori descent in New Zealand. In other words,
if someone has a distant ancestor who was Maori, and ticks
the Maori option as well as other options to reflect their
more recent and dominant ancestry, all of those other
ethnicities will be ignored and they will be classified by
Statistics NZ as “Maori”. This practice grossly
exaggerates the number of Maori in New Zealand with serious
financial consequences, since these statistics are used as a
basis for the allocation of resources for race-based
Maori-only policies and funding.

Simon Chapple, a Senior
Research Analyst with the Department of Labour outlined the
implications of this in 2000, in a groundbreaking study,
Maori Socio-Economic Disparity. Using data from the
1996 Census he explained, “In the 1996 census there were
273,693 New Zealanders who identified ethnically as Maori
and Maori only. In addition to this, there were 250,338 New
Zealanders who identified as members of another ethnic
group, usually Pakeha/European, and also as Maori. Currently
Statistics New Zealand’s official policy is to arbitrarily
classify mixed ethnicity individuals who have Maori as one
of their ethnic groups as Maori and not as the other group
or groups to which they also belong. This sole plus mixed
group is the Maori ethnic group as officially measured. In
addition the 1996 census reveals another 56,343 New
Zealanders with Maori ancestry but who do not identify
ethnically as Maori. Adding these ancestry-but-not ethnicity
people gives around 580,374 Maori in 1996.”[3]

He
suggested that a more accurate reflection of the real
situation could be obtained by retaining half of those
classified as Maori as part of the Maori ethnic group, with
the rest allocated to a non-Maori group using their other
primary stated ethnicity.

Doing this same analysis for
the 2006 census figures shows that of the 565,329 people
classified by Statistics NZ as Maori, over a half (53
percent) identified with another ethnic group as well.
Removing these people with multiple ethnicities leaves
265,704 who identified as Maori-only.[4] This number is
almost 8,000 less than the equivalent count in 1996, showing
that those who identify as Maori-only in New Zealand are -
as expected - on the decline. In 2006, people of Maori-only
ethnicity represented 6.3 percent of the population – a
considerable distance from the 14.6 percent officially
claimed as the size of the Maori ethnic group that year.

The reality is that due to the rapid rate of
intermarriage in New Zealand the boundaries of Maori
ethnicity are blurring to such an extent that accurate
ethnic categorisation has become almost impossible. As Simon
Chapple explains, “Influenced by a bi-culturalism that
views Maori and non-Maori populations as if they ran on
separate parallel train tracks, the current conventional
wisdom ignores the implications of intermarriage”.
Yet he finds that the statistics in 1996 are far from
immaterial - the partners of 7 out of 10 of the younger
married and de-facto Maori ethnic group are non-Maori, and
over half of Maori children now have a non-Maori parent.
This means that claims that Maori are a distinct and growing
population is a fiction - a political construct aimed at
fulfilling elite tribal ambitions for money, power and
resources.

With the world of Maori statistics and Maori
funding totally politicised and lacking rigour, information
based on this data should not be regarded as a true
representation of the reality within New Zealand society.
Why this situation has been allowed to continue is a serious
question that deserves a serious answer.

In 1986, the
year the ethnicity question was changed on the census form,
20,313 people objected by ticking the “other” box and
writing “New Zealander”. In 1991, 20,800 did so, and in
1996, the number jumped to 58,614. By 2001, it had increased
to 85,300, and at the last census in 2006, 429,429 people
called themselves a “New Zealander”.

With ethnicity
defined by Statistics NZ as “cultural identity based
around commonly held values and beliefs”, it could be said
that if 161 years after the New Zealand Constitution Act
granted self-government to our Colony, we haven’t
developed a unique New Zealand culture with common values
and beliefs that would enable us to call ourselves “New
Zealanders”, then there is something seriously wrong. Of
course we have – it’s just that there are strong vested
interests that do not want this ethnicity question to be
changed.

In the end it may be that public pressure is the
only way to get some honesty into our statistics. If that is
the case, then here’s hoping that everyone who understands
what’s going on ticks the “other” box and writes
“New Zealander”. Census, authorities have admitted they
are bracing themselves for even more people to take a stand
against ethnic categorisation – maybe this time the
numbers will force proper reform.

The other divisive
official event is this week’s launch of the Maori
Party’s Constitutional Advisory Panel’s “engagement”
process. With its pre-determined objective of bringing the
Treaty of Waitangi into a new written constitution as
supreme law, a panel hand-picked to recommend this to the
government, and a biased consultation process that puts
special emphasis on Maori representation, this signals the
beginning of a very divisive chapter in New Zealand’s race
relations.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator
Professor Elizabeth Rata, a member of our Independent
Constitutional Review Panel, explains how she was invited by
the government panel to share her views. In her article
How should we engage with our government, Professor
Rata outlines the concerns she has about the whole
government review process, and in response to the question
of why New Zealanders should participate in the
constitutional review process, she states:

“Because
retribalists and biculturalists are campaigning to have the
Treaty included in a constitution. This must not happen if
we are to remain a democratic nation. New Zealanders must
stop the inclusion of the Treaty in our Constitution. I
belong to a Group, the Independent Constitutional Review
Panel that includes members from across the political
spectrum. We are currently promoting the ‘Declaration of
Equality’ to oppose the Government’s Constitutional
Advisory Panel. 38,000 New Zealanders have already signed
the Declaration. We regard the Government’s Advisory Panel
as compromised by Treaty politics. Its 50/50 race-based
membership makes that clear. Our concern is that the
Government Panel has the funding and resources to promote
its agenda for the inclusion of the Treaty in a
constitution. A group such as ours has few resources in
comparison.” Professor Rata’s full submission can be
read HERE (- we are pleased to report
that almost 41,000 people have now signed the Declaration of
Equality).

Any proposed change to a country’s
constitution is a very serious matter. But with half of the
$4.1 million in funding for the government’s review
earmarked specifically for consultation with Maori, the
outcome of their process will be heavily weighted in favour
of the powerful iwi elite and other radical supremacists.
Their ambition is a Treaty-based constitution, with an
iwi-based ruling class co-governing New Zealand.

Since
New Zealanders will not get a fair hearing - nor fair
representation - through the government’s consultation and
review process, the Independent Constitutional Advisory
Panel has set up a submission process of our own. We are now
inviting public submissions for the “People’s Review”.
We are committed to representing the views of the wider
public fairly and in an unbiased manner to the government
later this year.

With regards to the submission process,
it is important to remember that many of the items in the
Terms of Reference are essentially distractions from the
Maori Party’s sole purpose – entrenching the Maori seats
and enshrining the Treaty of Waitangi into a new written
constitution as supreme law. Accordingly, it is these
matters that should be the major focus for all submitters in
the review, since they have the potential to seriously
divide New Zealand society in the future.

The terms of
reference for the constitutional review include the size of
Parliament, the length of the term of Parliament and whether
or not the term should be fixed, the size and number of
electorates, including changing the method for calculating
size; electoral integrity legislation; Maori representation
including the Maori Electoral Option, Maori electoral
participation, the Maori seats in Parliament and local
government; the role of the Treaty of Waitangi within our
constitutional arrangements; Bill of Rights issues including
property rights and entrenchment; and a written
constitution.

If you would like to make a
submission in the People’s Review, please visit the www.ConstitutionalReview.org website
and follow the “Make an on-line submission” link.
Submissions close in September and will be presented to the
government in the Independent Constitutional Advisory
Panel’s report later this year.

THIS WEEK’S POLL
ASKS: In question 11 of the 2013 Census, when asked
“Which ethnic group do you belong to?” should “New
Zealander” be an option?Click HERE to vote
*Read this week's poll comments daily
HERE*Last week 99% of voters opposed teachers being
forced to promote a 'Maori world view' to students and 1%
were in support ... read the comments
HERE

The third question
asked for an example of how our constitutional arrangements
in the context of Maori representation at both a
government and local government level works in practice.
Once again I objected to the assumption that Maori
representation is already operating within our
constitutional arrangements. My answer was to object to what
I referred to as an “unjustifiable creeping inclusion”.

I said: “The idea of the so-called Treaty partnership
has been placed into our institutions and practices despite
it being anti-democratic and hence unjustifiable and
impracticable. It is the result of the huge influence of a
small group of powerful biculturalists and iwi lobbyists but
it is opposed by most New Zealanders. The Government
Constitutional Advisory Panel is a good example of this
creeping inclusion. 50 percent of its members were chosen
because of their race. That is confusing political status
with identity – the point I make above. The latest Maori
representation strategy is ‘co-governance’. An example
is the proposed co-governance of the Hauraki Gulf with 50
percent Maori and 50 percent representation from all the
other groups with an interest in the Hauraki Gulf. This is
very very serious. It gives one race-based group
unaccountable power and takes away the justified and
accountable power from the others.”

"In making the decision, the Police executive has considered almost five years worth of 'use of force' data… It consistently shows that the Taser is one of the least injury-causing tactical options available when compared with other options, with a subject injury rate of just over one per cent for all deployments." More>>

Even an SOE that exists to fulfil a public function neglected by the market or which is a natural monopoly would nevertheless be forced to act "on the basis of commercial considerations" and would be prohibited from discriminating in favour of local businesses in purchases and sales. Foreign companies would be given standing to sue SOEs in domestic courts for perceived departures from the strictures of the TPP... More>>

Labour has listened to the families of whose loved ones have been killed at work and calls on other political parties to back its proposals to make workplaces safer and prevent unnecessary deaths on the job. More>>

As we learned yesterday, the reviews propose that the democratically elected representation on DHBs should be reduced, such that community wishes will be able to be over-ridden by political appointees. In today’s revelations, the reviews also propose a return to the destructive competitive health model of the 1990s. More>>